When people really care about what someone else sticks up their bum in private, that says plenty right there about how safe anyone’s privacy would be. Think about all those miserable better than you do-gooders out there, who would use a lack of privacy, to enforce whatever twisted sense of propriety they have. Where would it stop?
They don’t even have to be similar if they fall within the definition of “obscene devices”. That clause applies to “obscene articles”.
Bricker, I rarely disagree with you, but (even ignoring this Texas statutory interpretation point), your position on this issue is scary.
You have no prescription pills out of their original containers? Never used a chemical product inconsistent with its labeling? No software that you can’t produce a license for? No music for which you can’t produce original packaging or other evidence of license? (No piracy implied - question of record-keeping perfection only.)
Even if you are such a paragon, can you accept that most people aren’t?
Until the Georgia Supreme Court’s little spate of “judicial activism” in Powell v. State (later extended to the whole country in Lawrence v. Texas by the U.S. Supreme Court), I get the distinct impression a heck of a lot of Georgians were doing things theoretically punishable by up to 20 years in state prison without having any idea that such a law existed, or at the very least that the penalties for such acts were purportedly so severe. I know I was certainly startled to realize that such a law was still on the books, and carried such heavy penalties, when some case in which a (non-aggravated) sodomy conviction resulted in someone getting a 5 year sentence made the news, back in I think it was the early '90’s. This was pretty much before everyone could just look things like this up on the Internet, and I actually went down to the library to get the big tomes with the Official Code of Georgia just to see for myself.
Perhaps the number of “gotcha” crimes is decreasing (though often as much from judicial as from legislative action), and the ready availability of online searchable legal codes at least helps bring them to light. On the other hand, I wonder if Lawrence v. Texas would also strike down O.C.G. 16-6-18? One would hope so, but if not, I suspect a rather large proportion of the state’s population is guilty of that particular crime (albeit a misdemeanor, not a felony).
Actually, we should assume. We should assume that you are innocent until proven guilty, or is that no longer the philosophical basis of our justice system?
Meant to include this above:
I still question why the government feels the need to bother with this nonsense at all, except to play it up to some “values voter” base. It’s “feel good” legislation that serves no practical purpose.
How many terrorist cells will slip through the cracks of our system because people were too busy enforcing Dildo Legislation? Or any actual criminals for that matter? Who want’s to be the one to explain to the parents of a child who died in a gang war crossfire that police were busy raiding a suspected dildo hoard?
Which has certainly stopped recent governments from jumping on that little bandwagon. Let’s deal with reality here: most elected officials, and certainly the current One-In-Chief, couldn’t care much less about actually providing the service/protection/support for the general public that they promise; they want the *credit * only. Supporting this kind of “feel-good” legislation, while risky because it alienates a fair percentage of the people, scores BIG points with folks who apparently treasure their own “moral superiority” as the only characteristic they have worth bragging about. Ironic, given how many of their own biggest figures have turned out to be hypocrites of the purest ray serene. But then again, *facts * don’t seem to weigh all that heavily with these folks.
This is not the first time that Bricker has claimed extraordinary innocence.
I think i need my privacy because it protects me from things other people may do to me or negative ways they may treat me, and thats why i think privacy is good. As other people have said, I wouldn’t trust an assurance that it would be kept solely for government use (screw-ups, hackers etc etc) but even if it was then there are numerous other problems such as what if I wanted to go for a job in a department that had monitored me at some time - would I really want my boss having seen me going to the loo/ having sex/ getting dressed - chances are that situation wouldn’t come up but the fact that it could would keep me awake at night.
There are many things I do that aren’t illegal, immoral or even questionable but I still wouldn’t want anyone, government or not, seeing me do them. Same way as there’s nothing wrong or illegal with my body but I would refuse to let an official see if without really good cause - its all about modesty.
Then you’re perfectly free to argue that the devices are not similar enough to fall within the ambit of the law.
The bolded portion of the law does not do anything except create a presumption. In the instance you mention, it’s effectively a rebuttable presumption: you have only to show that your devices are not “similar.” In fact, you don’t have to show it – the government has the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, to show that they ARE “similar” within the meaning of the law. If I were sitting on a jury, I would have no trouble concluding that anal beads, a vibrating butt plug, a pocket pussy, and a more traditional vibrator were all unique items for purposes of this presumption.
Of course. But when you have ten pounds of crack cocaine packaged in individual dime bags, the government shouldn’t have to also present additional evidence that you planned to sell them… the fact of the quantity and the packaging should be enough for a jury to conclude that on their own, without any additional evidence. That’s the same type of presumption as is being applied here.
No.
Not so far as I’m aware.
No.
No. How would I have music, except in its original packaging?
Have we all forgotten what the word “or” means. There are three things that are covered by this section:
(1) Possesion of six or more obscene devices
(2) Possession of identical obscene articles
(3) Possession of similar obscene articles.
Regarding why some folks don’t trust the government with private (or formerly private) information:
A cynical person might argue that our current system of elective office is relatively efficiently designed, however inadvertently, to weed out any politician with a strong moral sense, and/or the self control to avoid putting his or her own interest ahead that of others.
A very cynical person might argue that such design was not at all inadvertent.
Sailboat
Well, it’s easy to assume the law will be applied properly, if in your hypothetical you’re the one applying it. If I were a cop, I wouldn’t arrest someone based on his collection of anal stimulation device but assuming one did and I was a district attorney, I wouldn’t file charges but assuming one did and I was the judge, I wouldn’t overrule a motion to dismiss but assuming one did and I was on the jury, I wouldn’t vote to convict but assuming one did and I was an appellate judge, I wouldn’t sustain the cases but assuming one did etc. It’s easy to insert yourself or someone of similar views along the way and trust that justice will be done, but realistically it is always possible that no-one of such views will be in a position to intervene, or at least not before round after round of legal expenses leaves a defendant financially broken, simply because that defendant was unlucky enough to encounter one determined cop, one determined district attorney, one determined judge and one determined juror who looked at the collection, reflexively thought “pervert” and ran with it.
Do you want to argue that this couldn’t happen?
I have shoes that I like to wear when doing surgery. They are comfortable and cheap, so I can toss them when they become blood stained. When a local Monkey Ward was closing down, they had those already cheap shoes for $4.99 a pair. I bought all that they had in my size, around 20 pair total. I never sold a pair.
As far as why I treasure my privacy, it seems my gf loves it when I **** her ***** with my ****, and sometimes *****. She also likes to ***** in the ****. Not all the time, but often enough.
I love this country. The only thing I can think of that would drive me to leave is the topic of this debate. Canada? Australia? Netherlands?
This leads to one of the basic problems of a multiplicity of laws combined with mechanisms that make them actually enforceable if someone chooses to bother – the law becomes a means by which the government can attack its enemies. There is ample historical precedent of (for example) politically-motivated income tax audits (to use a classic example of a situation in which an average citizen who intends to obey the law can easily violate it).
I have fifty of one specific model of Beast Machines era Transformer, because they were on sale and it amused me mightily. I use them mostly for boredom dioramas and to hold papers and books up for when I’m working on things.
If there is any logical reason for me to have them, it’s beyond me.
The point of original cite was that people might easily fall within the ambit of the law without realizing it, not that people might be prosecuted for crimes they didn’t commit.
Is this a serious question? I suppose I’ll assume that it is, although from just about any other source, I’d suspect an attempted whoosh.
In my experience, most people under the age of 50 who have any significant music collection would have such music, in one or more of the following forms even if they refuse to illegally obtain music:
(chosen format will vary by age)
-
Casette tape (or burned CD) of vinyl album (for convenience to allow use in walkman or car stereo)
-
Party tape (or CD, or mp3) of music from several albums.
-
Music (legally obtained from purchased album or paid download) on computer hard drive or mp3 storage medium.
I’m far from the biggest music fan out there, but even I have a few of these. I haven’t taped music on a casette in probably 15 years, but I still have a few of those old tapes around. Do I still have all the source albums? Almost certainly not. Even if I could unearth my vinyl collection (it’s remained in boxes through 2 moves and currently resides somewhere in my basement), I guaranty that some of those source albums have been broken, lost, or wore out. I’ve also broken a CD or two, and some of the music is on other media.
My bigger question, though, is one I asked you before: Do you accept that most people aren’t the careful record keeper and label reader that you seem to be?
Also, do you accept that most people don’t have the legal knowledge that you and I may take for granted?
Finally, even if we were all like you (in the legal care/knowledge areas), do you accept that, for most people, there are activities that they would rather not share with the government (or the public, or your church, or your employer), even if those activities are 100% legal?
Before you go nay-saying what you think the government is actually collecting, or the power and technology that you think is available to them, I suggest looking into the recent AT&T/EFF case and the fact that the the government is trying to kill itbefore it proceeds.
Sure, far too young for Nixon and Hoover, and you do make a good point. I guess this is the wrong debate for me, it’s just that all I ever hear when people complain about increasing surveilance is their own private life, and I think they should have better things to worry about. But sure, for you Americans it’s a different thing, with the patriot act and your crazy politicians and such.
But to those who feel my idea of dignity is apathy: What dignity can you have if you’re not even proud of your own actions? And that’s my only point, too.